Are more people on welfare than working full-time?

Larry Bossom, 41, who lost his job a few month ago, leaves the St. Ignatius Food Pantry in Chicago with bags of items last month. Bossom is relying on food stamps and the food bank to help him until he finds work again.(Photo: M. Spencer Green / AP)

The claims

Welfare pays more than minimum wage in 35 states, and more people are on welfare than have full-time jobs.

The background

Sheila Lester of Reno wrote to Fact Checker asking if Bill O’Reilly was correct in a column the RGJ published where he said:

“According to the Census Bureau, more people in America today are on welfare than have full time jobs. There is a culture of dependency being created that is truly shocking. A recent study by the Cato Institute says that welfare now pays more than minimum wage work in 35 states. So why enter the work force at the bottom, if the government will give you the same compensation for sitting on your butt?”

Let’s start with the Census Bureau claim. O’Reilly seems to have gotten this from an October story at CNSNews.com that said:

“There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said in data released this week. Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, there were 101,716,000 people who worked full-time year round in 2011. That included both private-sector and government workers.

“That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.”

O’Reilly says the Census figures refer to the situation “today.” They do not. As you can see from the CNS excerpt, the figures are from 2011, when the economy was worse.

If we look at today, the number of full-time workers has increased. In October, it was 116,267,000, based on seasonally adjusted figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics — or over 14 million more people working full-time.

The number of people getting means-tested welfare (meaning based on income) is not available for 2013. Politifact.com tried to get a ballpark number by examining data from various agencies, and it found at least 12.1 million fewer cases of subsidized housing, food stamps, Medicaid and TANF (cash welfare) being claimed this year than in 2011.

(If 14 million went back to work as the economy recovered and at the same time at least 12.1 million stopped receiving welfare, this seems to belie O’Reilly’s claim that people would rather sit on their butts and get welfare than work.)

But let’s take out the time-frame error. Back in 2011, was it true that more people were on welfare than were employed full-time?

Here’s where a bigger problem crops up. CSN was comparing apples and oranges. At the top of the cited Census table are the words “The figures for means-tested programs include anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program.”

What this means is that CSN and O’Reilly were comparing the number of individuals employed full-time with the total number of people living in households where at least one person was receiving welfare.

The most obvious reason this comparison fails is that there could be one person in a household getting welfare but six people living there, and thus CSN would give a welfare count of six for such a house, overcounting the actual number of people on welfare by 600 percent.

There are even more reasons this comparison is faulty.

The number receiving welfare includes millions of children who aren’t eligible to be counted among full-time workers by the Census, not to mention retired people who may receive disability payments or housing assistance. Such a number can’t fairly be used to make the case that people would rather get welfare than work if they can’t be in the workforce.

Further skewing the comparison, it’s very possible to work full-time and qualify for welfare. Consider a single woman with two children. Say she works full-time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25. At 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, she earns $15,080. The federal poverty level for a household of three is $19,530. This qualifies her home for many types of welfare.

According to a 2011 U.S. Department of Agriculture report, of the 40 million people receiving food stamps (now called SNAP), about 23 million worked. Working and getting welfare is not uncommon.

Now, let’s turn to the claim that people can make more on welfare than working full-time in 35 states.

O’Reilly is correct that the Cato Institute released a report making this claim — and Nevada is one of those 35 states. The accuracy of the report is another matter.

It starts with two assumptions.

First, it assumes if a parent works, the family receives zero welfare except refundable tax credits. This is not true, if you remember the statistic above that 23 million people worked out of the 40 million getting food stamps.

For another example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using Census data, reports that in 2011, 86 percent of low-income children receiving Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were in working families.

Second, Cato assumes that if a family receives any kind of welfare assistance, they receive every kind of welfare assistance. It says that if a person receives food stamps, he or she also receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, Medicaid, housing assistance and WIC (a nutrition program for pregnant and postpartum women, infants and young children). This is how it’s able to tally up such high incomes from welfare.

In the report’s conclusion, Cato does say that “many … do not receive every benefit listed.” Yet this is not the assumption behind its headline claim about earning more on welfare than full-time work.

Throughout the report, it’s made to seem that widespread participation in multiple benefits is the norm.

It could’ve just as easily cited a 2011 USDA report on WIC, that just 7.9 percent of WIC recipients also get TANF or that only 6.2 percent of WIC recipients get both TANF and food stamps.

The verdict

It’s not true that more people get welfare than work full-time. The comparison is based on numbers that can’t properly be compared. In particular, the claim compares full-time working individuals with the number of people in entire households where just one person gets welfare.

And while it’s theoretically true that in 35 states someone could earn more on welfare than by working full-time at minimum wage, it could only happen if the person gets every type of benefit available. This is exceedingly rare, if not unknown.

He's absolutely right. I look for the Condemnation of those who receive "any" type of Gov't benefit, because it's assumed they're looking for a "hand-out" when, if they do, they have to meet the "poverty" criteria to RECEIVE Those benefits.
That's the point-people are Not lazy, including people who must meet Poverty Guidelines to qualify! Also, you have to have at 2.5 Children to meet the minimum-wage mark receiving ALL the benefits (TANF/SNAP/WIC and Medicaid) to equal the value of a minimum wage JOB, as the article states!

That in no way exonerates the fact these people ARE unemployed and the DICK O CRATS are deepening that burden with their stupidity of adding people who aren't citizens but they are making them citizens to add to our already oversized burden I have to wonder if they are just brainless idiots.

The facts remain that huge numbers of so-called Americans have made living off other citizens a way of life, and the current administration supports and encourages this travesty by its policies. This goes far beyond helping the needy, which USED to be our way of life.

Thomas Sonne That is just plain BS! It is easy to boast about jobs numbers when we aren't counting the people who are on government assistance. It is not a condemnation it is simply a fact of life and to somehow not count these people as unemployed is just a lie. On top of adding more people to this burden is IDIOTIC! IF this nation has half of its people on government assistance they must be counted as unemployed so now what are the real numbers? Democrats spew such BS out of their greed and never give one crap about their future generations. Face the fact they SUCK! The worst hasn't happened yet with this health care scam.

It clearly isn't the fault of the people. I don't blame them at all. It clearly is the fault of this administration. With higher taxes and government health care as a burden to the job creators don't expect good numbers the government is taking the jobs away from them. Our cost of living because of all of these factors has sky rocketed. I cant wait until this ends and people can have normal lives again, Raise children and enjoy a life with a decent job again. Bush was great for the economy until he suffered a democratic majority. To bad they tarnish his great record.

Dear lord, do you actually research aside from listening to your chosen propaganda source before posting?

What on EARTH is "Government Health Care as a burden to job creators"? The way you phrase that very statement screams that you don't even understand what you're talking about. There is no new "Government Health Care" all the sudden. There is medicaid expansion... I guess you could be referring to that as "Government Healthcare"... but that has no relevance to employers and isn't some new thing. There is the health insurance marketplace... which has nothing whatsoever to do with any "Government Health Care" because its the same private insurers that were already there, just available through an online marketplace with some subsidies to buy this PRIVATE insurance for people based on income... subsidies covered by taxes already paid, not any NEW taxes created. But again, the payments for benefits through these insurers are all through the same private system we've had since private for profit health insurance hit the scene 45 years ago... So, what exactly are you talking about?

Taxes have been at a 30 year LOW under the current administration. Some sites will claim they have risen, but that is an intentional warping of the truth. In FACT, the tax RATES have gone down. The problem is, because the GDP has been in the toilet since before the current administration hit the scene, the PERCENT of GDP that taxes represent LOOKS higher. But only an imbecile doesn't understand how to see through a deliberate piece of spin like that. Its real simple... more people are out of work, there is less production, there are fewer wages being paid=there is less being collected... or less overall in tax revenue. That also means that with NO MAJOR increase in federal SPENDING, deficits go up temporarily. In the current case, those deficits are severe. You know what? This ain't the first time and it won't be the last. Only some ingrate who doesn't understand the ebb and flow of the economy and who can only see the here and now believes its the end of the world.

Its a function of MATH for Christ's sakes, not huge amounts of new programs and spending. Health care as a "burden" to job creators is also nonsense. Aside from the very smallest of the small employers (who actually have tax rebates that make offering healthcare to their employees a net neutral expenditure at worst), employers have tax write-offs that they don't even need to even their balance sheet. I know it might be a little too complex an idea for some people to understand how offering access to health insurance actually INCREASES productivity and profitability, but I guess for some people the idea of the "American Way" is that we all race to the bottom, too. Really... SERISOULY... If a company can't afford the minimal actual cost when the balance sheet is totaled that health insurance accounts for then they really need to re-examine their business model, because they have no business trying to exist in our economic system.

Oh, and I'm so, sooo very sorry that employers (like myself) are being required to provide enough for their employees to actually survive and thrive, rather than the strange paradox you don't seem to understand of paying too little for employees to live and eat, therefore needing welfare programs to stay alive, all the while being too ignorant to realize THAT is a fundamental reason you have many of the "taxes" you complain about. Expect employers to actually invest in their employees. Unless ofc raping your employees because you know they can get food stamps is what you consider the "American Way".

Lest you throw out the ridiculous argument that "well these ppl can always go get educated and get better jobs".... ofc they can. But someone still has to do the work. Are you ready to cook your own food when you visit a restaurant? Until you are, spend a little more time educating YOURSELF before posting nonsense that is such a clear regurgitation of someone's bias filled horseshit.

How is "government taking jobs away from them"...? You do understand basic economics, right? When there is enough money spread widely in the population, demand is created for goods. When there is demand, businesses create more jobs to meet the labor to create the goods. When there ISN'T enough in wages across the country to stimulate demand, tell me why in the HELL businesses would just start hiring and making things no one is buying? Government doesn't take jobs away. Income distribution and a horrible lack of regulation of several parasite industries is what is killing jobs in America. I'm sorry that sometimes some ppl keep so much of the pie that it has to be forcibly taken back away from them.

Just look at the price of gas even a person who cannot count should be able to see taxes fees and fines have made the price of gas increase.CBO: Obamacare Will Lead To 2 Million Fewer Workers In The Labor Force By 2017
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cbo-report-obamacare-job-losses-2014-2#ixzz3H1IvOfmK
I feel that the liberals should pay for anything they want to pay for, so if taxes go up. I believe that is the tax you wanted so you should agree to pay it. It obviously wont cost you more money by your mathematics. I however learned addition in school. When you add numbers you have a greater number. That is about as basic as real economics ever get, to see the proof of that you need only go to the gas station or the grocery store. It is a mathematic impossibility to add numbers and come up with a lesser number.
In fact by raising taxes people Do lose jobs it is beyond any mathematics I have learned in first grade to think increasing costs will not cause one of two things job loss or increased prices. show me this math.

But gas prices are actually irrelevant to the argument you make, as most of the taxes placed on gas prices are collected by the *STATES*, and generally used for infrastructure (that's roads and such, in case you were unaware.) And the reason gas gets high has almost nothing to do with who is in office, it has to do with the per barrel price set by OPEC, which we have no control over.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/07/26/the-persistent-myth-of-obamas-role-in-high-gasoline-prices/

Indeed, it is likely that most of the impact that Obama has had on gas prices actually has nothing to do with taxes, but rather with alternative energy options that the President has been pursuing. That's that old "supply and demand" formula at work again, one that you apparently, from your own admission, do not understand, because you've only got 1st grade math. If you actually had any economics, you'd understand that it's not a simple matter of adding up one factor, there are multiple factors involved.

But since you've asked for the math, here you go:
Here are the basic functions for supply and demand:
P=D(Q)
P=S(Q)

And here's a simple example using pizza...
http://whyseemath.com/pdf172/sup_dem_linear_model.pdf

Now, this is the *simplest* function using supply and demand, and it essentially says(on the demand side, the consumer's side) that the Price a consumer is willing to pay is equal to the Demand for a product * the quantity of the product. The supply side (the business person's side) says that the Price that the business person will charge is based on the supply they have times the quantity.

It's only when those two equations balance out, (reach equilibrium) that a sale actually occurs. Here's an article explaining that:
http://earthmath.kennesaw.edu/main_site/review_topics/supply_demand_equilibrium.htm

NOW... that's just one *little* part of what Mr. Vetter is trying to explain to you. The most relevant portion of what he's trying to explain is this:
The price that a person *can* pay for a product is limited to the amount of income they have. They can't pay more than they have, and how much a person will spend on any specific product also tends to be a percentage of their full income. At Minimum Wage a person has less to spend, and the largest amount of what they have has to go towards living expenses. Rent, food, etc. They have little to no "discretionary income" and even their living expenses have to be low.

The producer, on the other hand, can't make money if people don't have "discretionary income" to spend. No discretionary income, no profits for the business person. No profit for the business person, no "job creation."

The business person only creates jobs when they have customers to spend money at their business. They only have those customers when people have money in their pockets.

Which is why paying people too low wages is *VERY* bad for business. Henry Ford, one of the most lucrative business men in history understood this very well. That's why he developed a philosophy of paying his employees enough that they could *afford his products*.

But I suspect that this entire exercise is wasted on you, as your own confirmation bias isn't set for understanding the math, or the complex ways in which social forces interrelated. But at this point you have it.

Bush had gas under 2.00 so your 3.00 is meaningless to me. In that case we wouldn't need a 15 cent additional gas tax. Would we now? We had all of that and 2.00 and less gas prices. It seems like their is some greed thrown in the mix OR are the workers too effected by the high price of gas? Of course they are they got a raise the rest of us suffer the stupidity of high and higher costs with less and less money left over BUT I do feel bad because everyone who is paving roads today who were living under a bridge during the Bush yeas Oh wait that is the Obama years because that high job rate is based on the highest numbers of Part time jobs since the great depression. GREAT TRADE HUH? In conclusion B.S.

Liz Chartier Yes... as I thought... you're a "low information" voter with no concept of how things work. A single price point tells you nothing about how gas prices behaved during a specific period.

"Adjusting for inflation, prices rose to $2.52 (Bush) and $2.53 (Obama) seven months into their terms, $2.76 and $2.71, respectively, nearly two years in and $3.27 each three years in. This month, gas is $3.85, more than a dime cheaper than at this point during Bush's second term when adjusted for inflation.

The average, through 45 months in office? Obama: $3.04; Bush's second term: $2.98.

"The global price of oil pays no attention to whether the White House occupant is Democrat or Republican," said Paul Bledsoe, a former White House energy aide to Bill Clinton. It's just that "when you're living paycheck to paycheck and gasoline is more expensive, you want to blame somebody."

If you actually research the topic (which you obviously have not), it is apparent that what all the experts say is true... the President has pretty much nothing to do with the price of gas. And your concept that taxes have increased the price... as I said, where that is true, it has nothing to do with the President. The tax on gas has been 18.4c per gallon since 1993... which means that neither Bush, nor Obama have added any fuel taxes (and just to be precise, the *President* doesn't create taxes, Congress does, so that 4.3c increase was created, as all taxes are, by Congress, not the President. Seems you need a civics class as well as an economics class.)
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/spending/T063-C000-S001-a-brief-history-of-the-federal-gasoline-tax.html

And as I said earlier, not only is most of the tax on gas *state* taxes. There are only a handful of states with lower taxes on fuel than the federal excise tax, most are higher... some are in the range of *double* what the federal government charges. Add that to the fact that the federal tax hasn't changed since 1992 and your whole argument that it's Obama's fault? Well, it just has no legs and only displays, once again, that you have a simplistic and fallacious view of the situation.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/mf.pdf

OH! And just BTW... gas prices have been going down steadily since 2008:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/12/the-nation-is-experiencing-the-longest-consecutive-drop-in-gas-prices-since-2008-aaa-finds/

Of course you also have a science problem (repeat after me... "correlation is *not* necessarily causation"), as you attribute the part time employment problem to Obama as well, and that problem, which has been around during the entire recession (caused by the "trickle down" economic policies of the Bush administration) is much more complex than you than you think.
http://ourfuture.org/20140818/bush-vs-obama-on-the-economy-in-3-simple-charts

OR, to get a full picture (and I'm sure you'll LOVE some of these figures, as they'll give you more fuel to "blame Obama" for, although it will be largely hyperbolic as well) here's Fact Check's analysis of Obama's numbers during his first term (which show that he's a better economic leader than Bush):
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/

And with that I leave you. While I'm sure some folks will benefit from this data, it certainly isn't going to be low information voters with the ability to accept only those datum which reinforce your confirmation bias. So, have a lovely day... I've got *real* research to do.

As I see it the government makes no money. The government produces no products for sale correct me if I am wrong. Yet the government employs millions of employees correct me if I am wrong. The government taxes the citizens of the united states to get their money to pay their employees their salary or pay and retirement correct me if I am wrong. This money they take from the citizens is lets say 3.8 trillion a year correct me if I am wrong. Is this amount of money 3.8 TRILLION a pretty damn big piece of the pie?. How big does this government have to get before you say wait a minute your taking to much of the pie and it is leaving us American citizens nothing. Wake up Mr.Vetter. 7/8 of government jobs could be replaced by the private sector and or eliminated. The huge piece of the pie that needs forcibly taken back that you speak of is that which the government has! They have not earned it. They have not sold any goods or produced anything. At least the big business down to the smaller businesses have produced a product and earned their money. And you say to take it and redistribute it. If you want that kind of government control then move to where they do that. That is not the way America was set up to be.

I can believe it. However, this country was built on helping the needy. It is not everyone's fault that are on welfare. Some people are very sick, old, children, and mentally ill. Not to mention there are a lot of people who are not that smart. So what do we do with these people? You can not just throw them off a cliff. The world has gotten so over populated and the jobs are not always there for people who lack health, brains or are mentally challenged. Also, this country was built on immigration and many people flood here because it is the land of milk and honey. Compared to many other countries that have so much violence and no opportunities. So who will play god and make the decision on who will eat, or who will die this year. I agree with one writer that many people have gone without health insurance. But eventually, one has to be cared for or death is the only option. Then if you make it to the hospital the expense falls on the system or you die. Just remember not everyone has the health to work 2 or 3 jobs. Not everyone can go to college. It is too hard for many people. It only takes three months to miss your mortgage payment and be foreclosed upon. Going down hill is very fast. If you lose your job, then your home it is a sad event. Yes it is sad to see people not getting married just to get welfare for their children. But, as long as you can have sex and there is no laws against that one, you will see this happen. Why should the children suffer any more than they do? So what is the solution????? Someone has to play GOD. Who is that going to be??? You can blame the presidents, etc., but they are trying to keep the country safe and the people feed the best they can. I personally, think all the off shore businesses are a sad thing because it does not employ us here in America. It is sad to see corporations pay so little to their employees when the top dogs make millions. It is sad to see them escaping taxes through foundations and other loopholes. But who will make it right?

Anyone with knowledge of statistics and enough numbers can skew the numbers to say what they want. The truth of the matter is he is right in the fact this country is becoming one of dependency and "Why should I work when I can get more money from the government" type society. I work in medicine and so many people expect to be seen for FREE! The lack of work ethic in this country is getting to a very appalling level. I have worked 2 jobs since I was 15 years old and only in the last year have I held only one job. I made sure I got my education - BSN (which I paid for) and made sure it was in a field where I would always have a job (nursing). TIME FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SELVES and STOP BLAMING OTHERS!

starting with you, I'd say. (reread your own comment and tell me you aren't the biggest frigging hypocrite to have commented on this page, lol. I don't know where you nurse at, but I can't even wrap my mind around the comment that "so many ppl expect to be seen for free"... I couldn't find enough ppl to count on a single hand in my entire city who would actually believe that they could receive free medical care... unless they were going to a free clinic. If, then, a free clinic is where you work, you need to either let go of your biases and bitterness or find a work environment that doesn't amp you up so much about them.

I work in a Community Hospital.... one of the ones caring for the poor. The lowest scores come from the patients who qualify for free care. They expect more than the paying patients.

Obamacare is horrible.

You may think it's good... right now.... but the second floor of our hospital has been closed since January 21st of this year. Our "fact finding team" found out that the Obamacare deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket expenses are keeping people AWAY from the hospital.... We had closed the 2nd floor for THE FIRST TIME SINCE OPENING IN 1955.

We are running in the RED for the first time in over 55 years.... My safety net hospital needs a safety net and Obamacare threw us an anchor!!

These patients are going show up in WORSE condition, needing more care than before... next time READ THE BILL before passing it and destroying an industry!!

Shelley Taber Its a liberal thing to think everyone should be paid for by the working class so do that. This nation has no obligation to even go to work if everything is free. What motivation is there to even bother to go to work if everything is free. BUT I do think the overly rich liberals should just fork over their money and live by their sword.

Except now because of the idiotocrats most of the rest of the people can not afford health care and are not getting the right amount of medication because even though you all have been told this will be a disaster you can never listen to the real people with brains because you just fall into the democrat liberal lie machine and want to believe that crap.

He should come spend a week with me at work. I work for welfare and I can attest
1 - “According to the Census Bureau, more people in America today are on welfare than have full time jobs." Based on the hundreds and hundreds of cases I alone have processed, I can say the scales are skewed towards those that don't have jobs versus those that do.
2 - "There is a culture of dependency being created that is truly shocking." Very true. I would estimate that 8 out of 10 people that are renewing or reapplying have more than a bit of an attitude if the benefits are not issued the same day or are delayed for any other reason. This is first hand experience speaking.
3 - “That means there were about 1.07 people getting some form of means-tested government benefit for every 1 person working full-time year round.” Means testing is applied to every case prior to processing a case. If a person is categorically eligible, that means they can apply and be approved for benefits even if they have million dollars in the bank. That and other resources are ignored. However, if their actual earned and unearned (social security, unemployment, cash gifts) income is over the set % poverty level then they would not be eligible or be eligible but not receive any actual benefits other than free lunch, phone, etc.
4-" Here’s where a bigger problem crops up. CSN was comparing apples and oranges. At the top of the cited Census table are the words “The figures for means-tested programs include anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program." This is true. The amount of benefits is based on the number of eligible people in the household, no matter the age, as long as they buy and prepare their food together.
5 - First, it assumes if a parent works, the family receives zero welfare except refundable tax credits. This is not true, if you remember the statistic above that 23 million people worked out of the 40 million getting food stamps. It is very, very unusual for someone who applies for foodstamps to not receive something. There are fewer adults that qualify for FMC (full family medical coverage), while most children do qualify for CHAP (children's health assurance program). But with the new Affordable Health Care Act/Obama Care, **EVERYONE** in NV has to apply through the Silverstate Health Exchange. If the application meets certain income requirements, then it will be routed to the state for Medicaid evaluation and the aforementioned standards come up again.
6 -" For another example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, using Census data, reports that in 2011, 86 percent of low-income children receiving Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were in working families." Based on the cases I process, I would say this is accurate or close to being accurate.
7= "Second, Cato assumes that if a family receives any kind of welfare assistance, they receive every kind of welfare assistance. It says that if a person receives food stamps, he or she also receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance, Medicaid, housing assistance and WIC (a nutrition program for pregnant and postpartum women, infants and young children). This is how it’s able to tally up such high incomes from welfare." Very, very, very untrue. The qualifications for SNAP (foodstamps) are very lax, mostly income verification (flimsy or not) and that's it. TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) is the cash program. A receipient in NV can only receive a lifetime limit of 60 months (not consecutive, required two 12 month sit outs). The requirements for this program are very stringent. The cash grant for one person/one child is about #387 a month. For this the adult(s) in the house must attend orientation, provide proof of familial relationship for the kid(s) in the household, participate in some work related activities (volunteer, working, training, etc), surrender in court ordered child support to the state. This cash grant also gets applied to the case as income and reduces the foodstamps received by the household. Medicaid has various levels as mentioned above, not every household qualifies and not every household member qualifies. Housing assistance in NV is handled through a County agency. The applicant has to notify us, but doesn't count as any kind of income. The cases I process are about 30/70 percent for housing subsidies, with the 30% receiving the subsidy. WIC is also handled at the County level and is not considered in the calculations for SNAP, TANF or FMC/CHAP.
8 - "For example, the Cato report says “over 82 percent of TANF families receive food stamps.” I would say my cases run more like !00%.
9 -" It’s not true that more people get welfare than work full-time. The comparison is based on numbers that can’t properly be compared. In particular, the claim compares full-time working individuals with the number of people in entire households where just one person gets welfare.

And while it’s theoretically true that in 35 states someone could earn more on welfare than by working full-time at minimum wage, it could only happen if the person gets every type of benefit available. This is exceedingly rare, in not unknown."

I honestly can't give an opinion on whether this is true or not. There is so much deception on income that a true and accurate evaluation of this statement In any state is very hard to accomplish.

Angela Larson my sisiter in law is a guidance counselor in Ohio. She made $97,000 last year... her husband is a history teacher at the same high school and runs the department made $106,000 last year. both have master's degree. They both have excellent benefits; health insurance at low cost, pensions, 180 day work year, etc... PLUS when they retire they each will get a pension of $69,000/ year .... FOR A TOTAL OF $138,000 PER YEAR...... the only way either one of the tenured teachers can get fired is to sleep with a student.

I am a clinical Pharmacist with a Doctorate... I work 250+ days per year.... I made $103,000 last year. I have no pension, pay $7000/yr for health insurance.... If I make one mistake, I can be fired, brought in front of the board, can lose my license, and depending on severity of error... can go to jail... I have MORE risk and get paid less....

Bottom Line: we already pay A LOT MORE for teachers and get horrible results.... look at the decline over the last 20 years....

Here is a tip: If you want to get someone from the opposing side of the aisle to consider your opinion, saying something like "one of the left wing bibles" is not the way to go about it, but nice try and way to cherry pick!

Angela Larson
Fair enough. I apologize, but there are plenty of references from more neutral or conservative sites, but having seen the responses from some who dismiss the stats because of the source, I was a bit snarky to you, unfairly.

$40K per yr for prisoners vs $8K per yr. for students. Once a kid leaves college, their are in debt to the tune of the price of an average home. What are jobs paying? The answer isn't increasing min. wage, because typically low minimum wage earners are unskilled. Education is key, making it affordable will help reverse the trend. Also a handup not a continual handout would help ease the burden on already overburdened social systems. Also if drugs are part of our reality then legalize and tax the crap of them, because it's obvious the war on drugs is an abject failure as is the war of poverty. Finally, politically speaking everyone of those jokers in Washington, DC or the State capitols need to be put on term limits (2 max.) they have gotten too lazy, too comfortable on our dime.

Lisa Fisher, I need more info. from you. In line 3 you state free lunch, phone,etc.........What exactly does that mean? In line 7 you state very very very untrue. I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean. Untrue what this author states in regard to the assumption from the cato instate that they would collect virtually every form of assistance? Or untrue the idea that the Cato institute has? It seems you specifically state that other forms of assistance are much more regulated. It seems as though you agree with the author, is that correct? I find it a shame that so many people have such lousy wages that they need to have govt. assistance to survive. So many people with no healthcare etc., don't you? Pathetic that this country puts billionaires up on a pedestal as if they are smarter, work harder and deserve more [corp. subsidies, tax credits, loopholes that many of us working folks could never imagine nor be privy to] than average people that are just trying to exist. I would also say that many people collected assistance during this last recession because of job loss,etc. and many of those people were in a bind with no income even though they had acquired over many years of working equity in their house and perhaps a savings account. What would be appropriate in your opinion? Let those people sell everything, go through their entire savings account, their 401k, etc., BEFORE they receive assistance? So in other words BECOME poor FIRST, then you would be eligible? Aren't we as a nation trying to keep people out of poverty? And yet even the Cato institute states that only 4% of the population is on welfare. I also would like to know how many of these people [%] collecting assistance are elderly or have mental health issues that nearly prevents them from working altogether.

except the for profit elementary education system hasn't gotten as much traction "yet" as the for profit prison industry. So those in power have no incentive to do anyting but continue to underfund education, all while some geniuses scratch their heads and wonder that educational outcomes grow worse and worse. Try putting fewer and fewer resources into a car you own. When it starts to fail in a few years, you really want me to believe you are an intelligent human being if YOU believe the car itself is at fault?

Jefferson, it is a matter of WHAT funds are being spent on. Ofc the asinine programs built around more and more testing, etc. aren't going to show much in the way of results. Its like saying that buying 1,000 dollar car seats should have an effect on the way your car's engine runs. We all know that, its not breaking news.

Of course the Republican party would use the CATO figures that say something very different from reality. The have based their whole party on lies and manipulation. They find it easy to flush the lives of 85 % of the people in this country down the as they make the riches corporation in the country our new kings. Funny how big bribes can make people turn a blind eye to the truth.

Both parties are guilty. Our whole system is broken and needs to be re-designed to work more efficiently. All the multiple special interest groups will continue to milk the system to advance their own agendas....We need a system that shows responsibility and adheres to it... Common sense has given way to corruption on a grand scale. Everyone needs to request accountability from your elected leaders, and if you do not receive accountability then vote the BUMS out.

and not one thing about the system will change as long as ppl are still so willing to believe the blame lies with groups like "the poor who don't advance themselves" lmao. If every "poor person" became a CEO, how exactly would that work? The reality is, in a society built like ours where greed and profit are the prime motivators, there AREN'T enough positions for everyone to be successful. Not everyone can be a queen bee. Understanding the need for labor and actually paying them a wage that allows the entire society to elevate itself rather than buying into the horseshit excuse that negates the real value and need for labor in order to justify the few with power robbing them blind. The day the guy ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK building the car actually makes more than the guy trading the pieces of paper that say he has a right to expect more share of the profit from building said car, even if he lives across the world in a competlely different country and plays no role in the actual process other than investing (ya, investing in a company that sits on record assets... so that "investment" was OH SO NECESSARY)

Was all that an oversimplification? Sure. It was just a demonstration of how easy it is to throw any random group out as responsible. Reality is, follow the money and the power. The poor have neither.

You all can say what you want I see absolutely no advantage to voting for the democrats who are way to expensive for a middle class existence. All the democrats care about is insanely expensive cumbersome government, who reduce the middle class to poverty and rob them of jobs, while they spend money like crazy people leaving the future generations in a big expensive jobless nightmare of poverty. All this talk about education is a big waste of money for a increasingly jobless society provided by the real 1% the nation should be alarmed at, the over sized people eating opportunity destroying government. The cost of a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas, your grocery cart is all you need to know about where we are headed with the democrat jet setters.

Diana Voigt Lets move all the corporations to China you will be able to hate them long distance in that case. I cant think of a more idiotic brainwashing propaganda. How do people fall for that old worn out liberal Mantra? WTF does that even mean? No sane person even understands that. Does that mean we don't need ANY jobs in this nation? The liberals have been saying this as long as I can remember and I still can't figure out what exactly their motivations is? Full out communism? If that's what you learn in the University you have wasted one hell of a lot of time and money.

I don't even bother to read O'Reilly. As the Fact Checker points out, his columns are filled with lies and distortions. It is unfortunate that the RGJ doesn't even have an active comments section for his columns, because his lies (like many of those on FOX) are allowed to go unchallenged, and many of the RGJ's conservative readers take them as Gospel.

Not only does the math not add up, the assumption is that there are more lazy people than workers letting capitalism off the hook. Our system has evolved to where many are shut out and otherwise run over by our runaway, under regulated market system. The same thing happened in the 1890s and the federal governments crackdowns and support of unions in the early 1900s led to the prosperity of the last century.

Rick Cooper These 100,000,000 good for nothing low life lazy scumbags! Hell, 20% of them are felons they don't deserve minimum wage! Throw em in slave labor camps, oh wait. Get an education! Be either an electrician, or do plumbing and heating like everyone else!

Master Pat That would be great but Republicans vote against rehab programs and drug prevention programs that fill our prisons, vote against education funding, family planning and vocational programs for undrperforming working class people. The one socialist work program, the military, really doesn't prepare most kids for work outside the military. The system has to work for more than just the 1%.

So the government has to be your mommy forever and you cant work your way up yourself? Really? On what day is it ever going to be your job to work your way out of you moms basement? NEVER? Countless people who built this nation got jobs learned trades and became millionaires. WTF is wrong with people the whole world owes them a living???? Only republicans are expected to be grown ups and pay your selfish way in life? Really? Get a life.

You people watch to much brainwashing news that keeps you in your cage of the world owes me a living. Meanwhile these people are rich and selfish and laughing at you.
They use you like toilet paper. Oh don't watch fox news OMG you may have to watch grown up shows.........

Truthmeter and contact info

Fact Checker columns by Mark Robison are rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 being absolutely true with no gray area, 5 being down the middle with good points by both sides, 1 being false with no gray area and 0 being intentionally, maliciously or foolishly false.

Email factchecker@rgj.com if you've got any queries about claims you've heard people make.